This was pretty inevitable. This movie borrows from "The Core" and from the film it borrowed from, "Armageddon", and the films it borrowed from and so on. Except this time there's Luke Perry too. This films version of the familiar save-the-world plot involves super-earthquakes beginning in the Pacific Northwest and extending too the whole ring of fire. Its soon determined that everybody on Earth just might be doomed. So the military and some scientists build one of those high-tech drilling machines to go inside the Earth and fix things (it just wouldn't be as much fun if they didn't have to go somewhere like space or inside the planet). There's even a line the tries to make the journey into the Earth sound more impressive than the journey into space (like the one in "Armageddon"). It's a Sci-Fi Network movie, so the script is paint by numbers disaster movie. There is in-fighting between scientists and military guys, there are rock-melting lasers, people die and sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and above all, there are (weak CGI) special effects. Not original and not all that entertaining. This is a movie to watch when you have nothing to do, particularly if you've got beer.
21 Reviews
Sux2B Descent
DrPostman22 May 2005
I just watched Descent. Gawds what an awful movie. Right off the bat they depict a lava geyser and a note says that it is miles below the the surface of Washington State. Folks, there are no geysers deep in the Earth like that. They thought it looked neat and in typical Hollywood style they threw it in. And then there is that well that spewed lava. He dropped a stone and I heard a splash. Steam would have erupted out of that well before a blast of lava could, if ever.
And the acting was pretty bad as well. Micheal Dorn has sunk to a new low in jobs.
What a dog of a movie. I bet the vote goes no higher than a 3.5
It didn't look like SciFi Channel spent too much other than to have pretty boy Perry as an attempt to draw.
And the acting was pretty bad as well. Micheal Dorn has sunk to a new low in jobs.
What a dog of a movie. I bet the vote goes no higher than a 3.5
It didn't look like SciFi Channel spent too much other than to have pretty boy Perry as an attempt to draw.
Venture to the Earth's core.
michaelRokeefe21 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Terry Cunningham directs this Sci-Fi Network original. All is not well in Washington state and Oregon; volcanic eruptions and earthquakes threaten to drop most of the Pacific Rim in the ocean. Trying to keep the world from plunging in ecological havoc, a crack team of scientists led by Dr. Jake Rollins(Luke Perry)take a massive earth drilling vehicle called "The Mole" to chew its way to the Earth's fiery core to avert impending doom. Technical dialog doesn't really help or speed this movie along. The acting is lame, but then Perry has always been laid back. You can only blame him for taking part. Others in the cast: Michael Dorn, Adam Frost and Michael Teigen
Bad acting, predictable script...what else do you need to know?
alanq21 May 2005
This movie's script is indistinguishable from others, most notably The Core, another bad movie. It's pretty clear why Luke Perry doesn't get much work, but to see the beloved Lt. Commander Worf (Michael Dorn) resigned to something like this is just sad.
I really can't think of one plot twist that isn't seen coming a mile away. That's not an exaggeration.
Special effects are very poor, even by TV standards. The lava flow at the beginning of the movie signaling the coming global disaster, starts things off at a very amateurish level. And it gets no better from that point on.
I really can't think of one plot twist that isn't seen coming a mile away. That's not an exaggeration.
Special effects are very poor, even by TV standards. The lava flow at the beginning of the movie signaling the coming global disaster, starts things off at a very amateurish level. And it gets no better from that point on.
Rip-off of The Core AND Armageddon
katarn-518 July 2007
Usual awful movie... I'll not bother you about the synopsis, just put together The Core, Armageddon, an evil-planner Military Officer and one or two Solve-All Nukes and you'll have the movie, if I can call it that way.
Seriously, nukes in this kind of movies are more useful than Swiss Army Knives:
the Big One is approaching? Nuke some places and it's over... A tornado wants to destroy "Insert important city name here"? Nuke "Insert another important city here"... A volcano is erupting? Nuke it! A nuke is near to go off? Nuke it! Coffee is cold? Nuke it! You didn't like Transformers? Nuke yourself, but I can't assure this will fix things...
In the end, how many more movies like this can be made before they start copying one another? I doubt there are still many things to blow up with a nuke...
Seriously, nukes in this kind of movies are more useful than Swiss Army Knives:
the Big One is approaching? Nuke some places and it's over... A tornado wants to destroy "Insert important city name here"? Nuke "Insert another important city here"... A volcano is erupting? Nuke it! A nuke is near to go off? Nuke it! Coffee is cold? Nuke it! You didn't like Transformers? Nuke yourself, but I can't assure this will fix things...
In the end, how many more movies like this can be made before they start copying one another? I doubt there are still many things to blow up with a nuke...
Don't waste your time unless you need a good laugh........
geologybarbie9 January 2006
This movie is a great movie ONLY if you need something to sit and laugh at the stupidity of it. As a geologist this movie gets most of the important facts wrong and uses actors that are too young to even be considered in the top of their fields. It is interesting how it shows spurting lava in massive caverns below the Earth's surface. It also is funny how seismically active areas are shown to have massive destruction from a 6.5 magnitude earthquake. They seem to forget the building standards in these areas would be higher needing a bigger quake to do this much damage. Also it is funny how much they make the coast line of Washington State and also Oregon to look as though they are nice beaches of Southern California. The Jelly donut analogy is very entertaining even if the way it is used is wrong. The director does a good job of adding more comic relief with the 2 "supossed" PhD's.
Not A homage to Jules Verne
jrgreenmd-127 May 2005
The SciFi Channel's 2005 movie "Descent" is a weak to fair reworking of the old "journey to the center of the earth" plot.
The movie appears to suffer from the classic failings of a SciFi Channel made for TV movie. Sets are limited and one gets redundant views of actors at sparse consoles intermixed with low budget animation of the vessel called "the mole." There is some action and some intrigue, but the movie gets a bit redundant with just three main sets (mole, cave, and control room) and the actors who try to twist the uninspired dialog into something entertaining.
Luke Perry does a good job as Dr. Jake Rollins, but Michael Dorn ( aka Warf from Star Trek) appears one dimensional with General Fielding's stilted dialog.
This might seem like another homage to Jules Verne's piece of classic of nineteenth century French literature "Journey to the Center of the Earth;" it is not. For that watch the 1959 classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" with Pat Boone and James Mason. The "Descent" is another "tunnel digging vessel heading to the center of the earth movie." If you like this sci-fi theme try episode # 1.2 from "The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne" titled "Queen Victoria and the Giant Mole." If you desire the big budget modern special effects, there is 2003's "The Core" with Hilary Swank. These choices may entertain and stimulate your imagination more.
However if you love science fiction, have nothing else to watch, and want to rest your brain; "Descent" will suffice.
The movie appears to suffer from the classic failings of a SciFi Channel made for TV movie. Sets are limited and one gets redundant views of actors at sparse consoles intermixed with low budget animation of the vessel called "the mole." There is some action and some intrigue, but the movie gets a bit redundant with just three main sets (mole, cave, and control room) and the actors who try to twist the uninspired dialog into something entertaining.
Luke Perry does a good job as Dr. Jake Rollins, but Michael Dorn ( aka Warf from Star Trek) appears one dimensional with General Fielding's stilted dialog.
This might seem like another homage to Jules Verne's piece of classic of nineteenth century French literature "Journey to the Center of the Earth;" it is not. For that watch the 1959 classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" with Pat Boone and James Mason. The "Descent" is another "tunnel digging vessel heading to the center of the earth movie." If you like this sci-fi theme try episode # 1.2 from "The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne" titled "Queen Victoria and the Giant Mole." If you desire the big budget modern special effects, there is 2003's "The Core" with Hilary Swank. These choices may entertain and stimulate your imagination more.
However if you love science fiction, have nothing else to watch, and want to rest your brain; "Descent" will suffice.
Don't waste your time watching this movie!
anni_eve1 November 2005
This movie was so awful i don't even know where to begin...The only positive thing i can say about it is that Luke Perry gave a good performance. The entire movie was all over the place, there was no explanation as to the cause(only theories)of the eruptions, or rationals for their solutions or why it would work. It was ridiculous! All the characters and relationship between them was so cheesy, you just wanna laugh!! There was just no background to any of them. The "love" relationship seemed to have been added on to the script, it was so awkward. There's an army man; big black general with a permanent cigar in his mouth, with the "AaarrrGH!i'm the Man!" attitude, such a pathetic bad guy. The two sidekicks, who are supposed to be geniuses are acting like two 16 year old frat boys. And then to create some action they decide to drop a rock on somebody's shoulder and for the rest of the movie he's coughing as if he was dying of a pneumonia or something...and then plays hero (cheesiest scene of all!!) to help the plan which is to do who knows what... its never a good sign when you find yourself laughing out loud in the middle of THE dramatic scene...in a nutshell; don't waste your time!
Utter Crap
daddyabc23 December 2005
You'd have more excitement cutting off your testicles than watching this, clearly a trick to get you to rent "Descent" instead of "The Descent", which is a much better movie.
This is a total rip off of "The Core" and much, much worse as regards special effects, I could do better with a box of cornflakes and a roll of tinfoil, I mean come on!....that "Mole" thing, bore more resemblance to a vibrating dildo than a subterranean vehicle .
Don't watch it - if you do you'll find the room your in has a funny smell for days after and you'll have this nagging feeling in the back of your head that you should go kill yourself or something.
This is a total rip off of "The Core" and much, much worse as regards special effects, I could do better with a box of cornflakes and a roll of tinfoil, I mean come on!....that "Mole" thing, bore more resemblance to a vibrating dildo than a subterranean vehicle .
Don't watch it - if you do you'll find the room your in has a funny smell for days after and you'll have this nagging feeling in the back of your head that you should go kill yourself or something.
The Corrreeee
SnoopyStyle29 December 2019
Science team leader Dr. Jake Rollins (Luke Perry) finds unusual minerals in the water. They are shocked when a waterfall turns into a lavafall. Earthquake strikes Seattle. Marsha Crawford (Mimi Kuzyk) leads the government response fearing it to be the result of Project Deep run by Dr. Palmer Drake (Rick Roberts) and General Fielding (Michael Dorn). Dr. Karen West (Marie Ward) is a member of the Project and Jake's former girlfriend. It's a deep drilling project for energy. The fix is placing a bomb deep in the earth.
This is basically a different The Core (2003) and that's not a high target to shoot for. The target isn't high and this one falls short of even that. This is a B-movie version of a B-movie with A-movie budget. I actually don't mind this movie until it starts drilling into the Earth. The story has nothing to do but wait for the inevitable success. This is no The Core and The Core is not even a good movie.
This is basically a different The Core (2003) and that's not a high target to shoot for. The target isn't high and this one falls short of even that. This is a B-movie version of a B-movie with A-movie budget. I actually don't mind this movie until it starts drilling into the Earth. The story has nothing to do but wait for the inevitable success. This is no The Core and The Core is not even a good movie.
Cheesy but fun
Glynnpeters27 January 2021
Delivery over script
drystyx31 July 2022
This is another of those super magma, super volcano movies, with some similarity to THE CORE.
You have to use close caption to understand the words, because the sound quality and the enunciation of the actors is so bad, and then you see that the dialog is as poor as it sounds.
That said, the actors and story rise above ridiculous dialog. Two comic relief characters who serve as assistants to the hero are what make this a better than average piece. Their dialog is atrocious, too, but their motivations and actions are extremely good. The actors make the most out of the poor script.
And while the dialog and sound are both poor, the motivations and story line are pretty good.
For one thing, the hero is an authentic "anti-hero", instead of a fake one. He has none of the classic heroic qualities, but has a good heart. He isn't perfect. He begins his anti-hero stance by running from danger twice, and getting winded and tired both times. A big star like Luke Perry doesn't have to show this sort of humility, so he deserves a real round of applause for daring to go against the grain. This is real "controversy" as opposed to "fake controversy", because the bubble boys are sure to go against humility.
The villains are also well defined. There are several villains, and each has credible motivation. You can't say that about most movies that usually get into the IMDB top 250 even.
The good points outweigh the bad. A good film. Just remember to use closed caption.
You have to use close caption to understand the words, because the sound quality and the enunciation of the actors is so bad, and then you see that the dialog is as poor as it sounds.
That said, the actors and story rise above ridiculous dialog. Two comic relief characters who serve as assistants to the hero are what make this a better than average piece. Their dialog is atrocious, too, but their motivations and actions are extremely good. The actors make the most out of the poor script.
And while the dialog and sound are both poor, the motivations and story line are pretty good.
For one thing, the hero is an authentic "anti-hero", instead of a fake one. He has none of the classic heroic qualities, but has a good heart. He isn't perfect. He begins his anti-hero stance by running from danger twice, and getting winded and tired both times. A big star like Luke Perry doesn't have to show this sort of humility, so he deserves a real round of applause for daring to go against the grain. This is real "controversy" as opposed to "fake controversy", because the bubble boys are sure to go against humility.
The villains are also well defined. There are several villains, and each has credible motivation. You can't say that about most movies that usually get into the IMDB top 250 even.
The good points outweigh the bad. A good film. Just remember to use closed caption.
a Very Very VERY bad movie !
ymasler31 December 2005
This is a Very Very VERY bad movie !
The plot is weak the acting is bad and the science is worse.
The special effects are unconvincing. The dramatic scenes are a joke. Every step of the way you can see coming a mile away. The end is disappointing and there is no suspense. The best aspect of the film is the soundtrack.
The only reason not to give this a lower vote is because it is a TV movie and i believe the budget was low to start of with.
I do believe that the young female fans of Luke Parry will still see this movie however he has done better work. Again this is Terrible. Very very very terrible. If you have a choice, look at something else.
The plot is weak the acting is bad and the science is worse.
The special effects are unconvincing. The dramatic scenes are a joke. Every step of the way you can see coming a mile away. The end is disappointing and there is no suspense. The best aspect of the film is the soundtrack.
The only reason not to give this a lower vote is because it is a TV movie and i believe the budget was low to start of with.
I do believe that the young female fans of Luke Parry will still see this movie however he has done better work. Again this is Terrible. Very very very terrible. If you have a choice, look at something else.
Cookie cutter
Leofwine_draca16 January 2014
Another generic Sci-Fi Channel and yet another variation on Jules Verne's JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH. This one's closer to THE CORE, but the intent is still the same; the Earth is heating up and spewing lava, so a team of scientists hop into the 'Mole' and ride down the same lava tunnels to sort it out. To fill up running time, there's some conspiracy sub-plotting, a bad guy or two, and a traditional romance.
There's also little to distinguish this from a dozen others. The opening is more fun than the latter stuff, because we're treated to a handful of disaster staples, from lava shooting up out of the ground to buildings being demolished in an earthquake. Once the action shifts below ground level, however, things get worse; the movie becomes a repetitive chore to sit through, cutting between cheesy graphics and the even cheesier acting inside the craft.
Human roles are taken by ex-pin up Luke Perry, looking old and tired, and STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION's Michael Dorn as an officious government type. Nobody else seems to bat an eyelid, and I was bored of this long before the end. Unfortunately for me, a local TV channel is having an "end of the world" week, so there are at least three more of these to sit through...
There's also little to distinguish this from a dozen others. The opening is more fun than the latter stuff, because we're treated to a handful of disaster staples, from lava shooting up out of the ground to buildings being demolished in an earthquake. Once the action shifts below ground level, however, things get worse; the movie becomes a repetitive chore to sit through, cutting between cheesy graphics and the even cheesier acting inside the craft.
Human roles are taken by ex-pin up Luke Perry, looking old and tired, and STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION's Michael Dorn as an officious government type. Nobody else seems to bat an eyelid, and I was bored of this long before the end. Unfortunately for me, a local TV channel is having an "end of the world" week, so there are at least three more of these to sit through...
Luke, my son
ctomvelu112 April 2011
Why do I watch such stuff? Is it because these horrible SyFy Channel flicks star TV has beens like Luke Perry? I guess the answer must be yes. The Earth is about to blow up, thanks to some clandestine government experiment, and it is left up to Perry and his team of scientists must save the planet. Luke Perry as a scientist. Ah well, it's good for a laugh. Right from the start, you will know you are in trouble with this one, as it kicks off with some stock footage that doesn't match what the learned military and government heads are describing. If you must watch this tripe, watch for Michael "Worf" Dorn as General Fielding. Talk about being typecast. Try to listen to that oh-so familiar voice and not picture Dorn in his Star trek makeup.
clichéd; but watchable
justinmo-116 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
For sci-fans this will be better than anything likely to be running on TV at any given time; that's about the best you can say of it. Good points; repartee and sense of humour is less dull than usual in such movies, the plot is coherent and doesn't use any magical mystical revelations. Bad points; the writers try to do good science but it falls down in direction and production (eg, a rock drilling mole using superheated rock drilling equipment breaks surface underwater with nary a bubble or boiling cauldron to be seen), the characters are cliché's and the plot unfolding is pretty stock standard. OK for a too-tired-to-do-anything-else type evening; but don't expect any major edification or even talking points really.
Story writers should have worn a mask!
vincem132 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"The Core" meets "Crack in the World" (1965 made for TV). The acting is stock, the suspense predictable. Once you subtract all of the plot ripped off from "The Core" - basically the manned drilling machine - you end up with the plot of "Crack in the World". "Crack" was a truly excellent movie starring Dana Andrews. His team of scientists, working in South Africa, drilled down to the crust and "punched through" with a nuclear device in order to provide a steady source of geothermic energy. One of his subordinates, also a brilliant scientist disagrees. He believes that the blast will not drill a simple hole, but will instead form cracks in the crust. (Possible spoiler) He is right. In order to stop the resultant crack from destroying the earth they must place another nuclear device in the path of the crack.
Although I have placed a spoiler warning, i don't know if I really spoiled anything for either movie. And since "Crack in the World is only available in very rare VHS format if at all my decision not to reveal whether or not the counter-blast works is probably academic.
All in all, I rate "Descent' just below average.
Although I have placed a spoiler warning, i don't know if I really spoiled anything for either movie. And since "Crack in the World is only available in very rare VHS format if at all my decision not to reveal whether or not the counter-blast works is probably academic.
All in all, I rate "Descent' just below average.
Terrible movie, if not quite among SyFy's worst
TheLittleSongbird31 July 2012
The premise was not really that advertising in the first place, but I saw Descent(and I made sure not to get confused with The Descent) out of curiosity and because I had little better to do. Other than a decent soundtrack, which is the only reason why it is not among SyFy's worst(Titanic II, 2010:Moby Dick, Battle of Los Angeles, Super Tanker and Quantum Apocalypse were irredeemable), Descent is terrible in every other aspect. Choppily edited with dull lighting and very artificial-looking special effects, it is cheap to look at. It is very poorly written too, with cheesy and trite dialogue, cringe-worthy romance scenes, dramatic scenes that come across as forced, a basic story that feels not just derivative but feels all over the place in the telling of it and very unlikeable and stereotypical characters, especially the villain. The acting is very poor, Luke Perry is far too laid back in the lead and his colleagues are not much better. Overall, not recommended at all. 2/10 Bethany Cox
if you have seen "The Core", then this is the remake for you! (it's as if "The CORE" hadn't had a Hollywood Budget)
simon-6662 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I got subjected to this pile one Wednesday afternoon when my mother-in-law was watching it. I can't get over someone basically doing a remake of a crappy high budget Hollywood flop ("the CORE" with washed up actors like Luke Perry). If the HIGH budget one flopped, what makes people think doing the SAME movie 2 years later with NO budget would go anywhere? I was laughing through most of the movie because of how insanely similar it was (in fact I am shocked it's not held up in Legal rather than airing on TV), and how it was basically the script of the CORE just redone badly, which if you have seen "the Core", you know why doing it worse is funny, since the CORE was ALREADY so bad it was funny.
If you enjoy getting a laugh out of REALLY bad movies, this one will be right up your alley. The only thing I can say, is that I wish Luke Perry was able to have a career, because he isn't a horrible actor.. he just lands horrible roles. Crappy made for TV movies that will only run on daytime television is pretty much one step closer to the end for him, if it wasn't for 90210 he would have a career.
If you enjoy getting a laugh out of REALLY bad movies, this one will be right up your alley. The only thing I can say, is that I wish Luke Perry was able to have a career, because he isn't a horrible actor.. he just lands horrible roles. Crappy made for TV movies that will only run on daytime television is pretty much one step closer to the end for him, if it wasn't for 90210 he would have a career.
Descent into Scifi Mediocrity
lee-9669625 May 2021
For some reason Amazon Prime recommended this, along with a number of other Syfy network movies. And wow, what a mess. Almost bad enough to be funny.
Some sort of dodgy government/military-sponsored deep mining venture has gone terribly wrong, causing -- it is not clear how -- lava eruptions around the world, the first one on a farm in Washington state. The very first scene is a gratuitous bedroom romp between a hot farmer and his attractive wife. Then magma interruptus! The farmer's dog is barking at a well outside, and the farmer gets, well, VERY hot when he looks down into the abyss.
From there it's down hill (down the tunnell?) into a cauldrom of the usual SyFy cliches and plot conventions. The lead (Luke Perry) is a not-in-the-mainstream geologist sounding the warning claxon to non-believers. There is a past love affair --- rekindling -- with the female pilot of a giant boring machine that will plumb the depths of the Juan de Fuca Subduction Zone. Also two comic-relief sidekick grad students. (For absoluteley no reason one of them tries to ask out a 60ish-someting femalke scientist -- weird).
Then we have the gruff, cigar-chomping general (Michael Dorn!). The evil Marine Corp major and his good-guy captain. Another scientist who is a professional and romantic rival to the Perry character.
Oh, and a nuclear weapon. It's the solution to the whole lava-spew crisis. This is the third or fourth SyFy movie I've seen where the big plot device is nuclear.
I'd give it a 2 star, but the Pandemic has so lowered my expectations that it gets an extra star. Watch to catch all the cliches. And maybe get a good laugh or two.
Some sort of dodgy government/military-sponsored deep mining venture has gone terribly wrong, causing -- it is not clear how -- lava eruptions around the world, the first one on a farm in Washington state. The very first scene is a gratuitous bedroom romp between a hot farmer and his attractive wife. Then magma interruptus! The farmer's dog is barking at a well outside, and the farmer gets, well, VERY hot when he looks down into the abyss.
From there it's down hill (down the tunnell?) into a cauldrom of the usual SyFy cliches and plot conventions. The lead (Luke Perry) is a not-in-the-mainstream geologist sounding the warning claxon to non-believers. There is a past love affair --- rekindling -- with the female pilot of a giant boring machine that will plumb the depths of the Juan de Fuca Subduction Zone. Also two comic-relief sidekick grad students. (For absoluteley no reason one of them tries to ask out a 60ish-someting femalke scientist -- weird).
Then we have the gruff, cigar-chomping general (Michael Dorn!). The evil Marine Corp major and his good-guy captain. Another scientist who is a professional and romantic rival to the Perry character.
Oh, and a nuclear weapon. It's the solution to the whole lava-spew crisis. This is the third or fourth SyFy movie I've seen where the big plot device is nuclear.
I'd give it a 2 star, but the Pandemic has so lowered my expectations that it gets an extra star. Watch to catch all the cliches. And maybe get a good laugh or two.
I like bad science fiction movies but...
jaweslozano7 August 2023
I like bad sci-fi movies but this was a very unoriginal.m, low budget copy cat of The Core. All of the characters were so cliche and predictable. The military guy was the worst part! He seemed like he read his lines from a card off camera.
Dr. Drake was overly arrogant considering the world was at the brink of disaster. I actually enjoyed Luke Perry and his 2 side kicks. They are the only reason I have this movie a 3. I actually played a game on my phone for most of the movie because it just didn't keep my attention.
If you don't have a lot going on and like bad sci fi, it's watchable but don't go out of your way!
Dr. Drake was overly arrogant considering the world was at the brink of disaster. I actually enjoyed Luke Perry and his 2 side kicks. They are the only reason I have this movie a 3. I actually played a game on my phone for most of the movie because it just didn't keep my attention.
If you don't have a lot going on and like bad sci fi, it's watchable but don't go out of your way!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
